Nikolay Ulyanitsky wrote: > May be to rebuild the package with current %dist and put it to 5.1 > release without rebuilding? > > On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 22:34 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote: >> Options: >> 1) We build it with what we have at the moment, 5.0 + Updates The point is that upstream are now using the %dist tag ( rightly or not, its there now - so we cant really question that anymore. I suppose, like other things, we live with it ) to indicate what tree[1] the package was built against. This could be used by clients and users to verify and track the origin within the Z release's. If we do what you are saying - that is build with el5_0 and just move it as is into the 5.1.x tree's - we end up with a package set that cant be tracked back to origin by name, and is not even declared as centos modified. For the time being, we released with el5_0, but I would really vote for rebuild with 5.1 ( so we get the linking and stuff right, and can actually rpmverify for an exact match ) and release that rebuilt package when we can. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq